Correspondence Between Member of Credentialing Committee for Libertarian National Convention and Chair of One of the Oregon Groups

Here is some correspondence between Emily Salvette, member of the Libertarian National Committee’s credentialing committee and Wes Wagner, the chair of one of the two groups hoping to be recognized as the correct Libertarian Party of Oregon at the convention.
 
This writer just counted some 25 or so articles  here on Independent Political Report about the Oregon problems since they began in earnest in March of 2011.    For background, I suggest putting “Oregon Libertarian Party ” into the search box, and start reading the articles chronologically, beginning in March of 2011.

 

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Emily Salvette wrote:

Hi Wes,
I’m contacting you on behalf of the national credentials committee. I wondered if I could give you a call sometime to discuss our committee’s time line and what might happen at the convention with regards to seating your groups’ delegates. The committee can’t make a decision until we get to Las Vegas (we don’t have provisions for email or teleconference voting), which is why it might be good to talk. I’m in the Eastern time zone and am not much of a late-night person, but if you could talk in the afternoon or around 5 pm your time, I might be able to hang in there. Or I could call on the weekend if that’s convenient for you. I don’t have a telephone number for you, so let me know your preferred one.

Thanks,
Emily Salvette
2012 Credentials Committee

 

 

Posted as a reply to Emily Salvette - chair of...

Wes Wagner 1:56pm Apr 19

Posted as a reply to Emily Salvette – chair of the credentials committee:

Emily,

No need for a call. I understand that situation is that your committee planned to create this issue from the incept which is why credentials were not distributed to the Oregon officers on day 1 like all other states. This is a manufactured crisis for the benefit of the political games of some extremely disturbed people.

I am familiar enough with Robert’s Rules to know what the proper form of your report would be if you played this game properly. Do that wrong and you will be embarassed even more than you will be already.

We are people of action… lies do not become us.

Sincerely,
Wes Wagner
Chairperson, Libertarian Party of Oregon

76 thoughts on “Correspondence Between Member of Credentialing Committee for Libertarian National Convention and Chair of One of the Oregon Groups

  1. Chuck Moulton

    The Wagner faction ought to be credentialed — due to the earlier Judicial Committee opinion.

    I don’t think being rude to the Credentials Committee and Emily Salvette will help Wagner’s chances of being credentialed though.

  2. Trent Hill

    Chuck, I know nothing about the case. But his response sure made me respect Wagner less.

  3. Steve M

    Other then, given the LNC’s Previous behavior of ignoring its judicial committee’s opinion…..

    In my opinion the Wagner faction should be the presumed delegation until the rest of the delegates can vote. let the other Oregon side risk showing up an not being seated.

  4. Jason Gatties

    I’ve met Emily personally on many occasions (she is a past State Chair in Michigan) and she is a fantastic person. Regardless of where I stood on this Oregon deal, she did not deserve the response she got from Mr.Wagner.

    Someone should clue him in on the fact that you’ll never win a PR battle acting like a thug.

  5. Kevin Knedler

    Horrible is all I can say. Yet I am NOT surprised by the behavior of Mr. Wagner. It has been the pattern all along.
    I have known Emily for a few years, as she is in Region 3 (OH, MI, KY, IN). She has been a staunch supporter of the LP for many years and has mentored many a new member, including me.
    She exhibits something that Mr. Wagner does not– in Ohio and the Midwest we would call it “class”. Thank you Emily for all you do for liberty and for putting up with the children in the party.

  6. Thomas L. Knapp

    Ms. Salvette absolutely, positively, deserved exactly the response she got, although it was a bit too gentle.

    There is no legitimate controversy over which organization is the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon. That matter has been taken up, it has been considered, and it has been ruled upon.

    The only proper action for the chair of the credentials committee to take vis a vis any proposal that the committee award the Oregon affiliate’s delegate seats to any organization other than the Oregon affiliate is to rule that proposal out of order.

    For Salvette to propose that the chair of the actual LNC affiliate in Oregon assist the credentials committee in making a proposal to steal its representation look like the legitimate conduct of business is so far beyond the realm of honest dealing that the LNC is derelict in its duty if it doesn’t immediately depose and replace her.

  7. George Phillies

    This is the same credentials committee chair who in 2008 facilitated the installation of a totally fake District of Columbia delegation. Why is anyone surprised?

  8. Brian Holtz

    There is no legitimate controversy over which organization is the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon.

    That was the claim made to an Oregon judge who was asked by Wagner et al. to dismiss the Reeves suit. The judge seemed to disagree.

    The Judicial Committee ruled that the government of Oregon is the arbiter of what organization the LPUS should consider to be the Libertarian Party of Oregon. I disagreed with that ruling, but I think the Credentials Committee should defer to it. The problem with turning the omnipotent state of Oregon into both the initial and final arbiter of this question is that Oregon’s courts aren’t done answering it.

    If only the LPOR had a Judicial Committee so that this private voluntary organization of libertarians could arbitrate its own rules without invoking the cult of the omnipotent state. Alas, the Wagner faction dissolved the LPOR Judicial Committee when it threw out the rules of that private voluntary organization. Well, there’s always the chance that CredCom will agree with Wagner’s argument that the LPOR’s new self-appointed leadership does not answer to the Oregon courts either. Just as absolute power can make the trains run on time, it can also make it very quick to decide among delegations.

  9. Wes Wagner

    BH @10

    You keep tossing that around, but the judicial committee in Oregon was entirely vacant due to their terms o office expiring since the bylaws set them at precisely 1 year. There was no judicial committee to hear the issues and it could not be reseated due to quorum constraints.

  10. Brian Holtz

    What quorum constraints? Those constraints came from Bylaws that you decided you had the power to discard. When you installed your own bylaws and appointed yourselves to office, you could have included a JudCom in your new rules and seeded it with the members of the old one.

    You had the choice between 1) appointing yourself to a level of power unchecked by any court or JudCom, and 2) using your magic Bylaws-rewriting power to change only the quorum requirement. I’d ask you why you chose (1) over (2), but I’ve already seen the video where you say that no LPOR convention would adopt the Bylaws you wanted them to adopt.

  11. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH @ 10,

    I didn’t mention any “Libertarian Party of Oregon” because the dispute over which organization has legitimate claim to that title is irrelevant to the credentials process.

    The Wagner group is, at the moment, the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon, whether it is the “real” LPOR or not.

    Salvette’s letter is the equivalent of sending Mark Hinkle a note saying “we know that the chair of the LNC is an ex officio member of all committees, but someone has suggested that we pretend Wayne Newton is the chair of the LNC and have him attend our meetings in Las Vegas instead of you. Wanna get together and talk it over?”

  12. Wes Wagner

    As far as the general “being rude” to Emily — no matter how polite someone acts to others does not excuse their conduct.

    Further, their suggesting to hold a Kafkaesque hearing on a matter they have no legitimate authority over deserves no response that indicates you respect them or their position.

    Since the credentials committee set about to create a “conflict” from day 1, Robert’s provides only one recommended course of action when such issues are unclear.

    Emily is playing a part, a role, an act in all of this. If you are dissuaded from calling her out on it because she is “polite” you have not yet developed the skills necessary to expose sociopaths, apparatchiks and their various willing/unwilling stooges.

    These are very necessary skills if you want to win a political battle against the Ds and the Rs.

    If, however, you think it is perfectly find for a group of national agents to interfere in a state affiliate in an attempt to change the composition of its delegation who remarkably also have a pattern of behavior that indicates tactic collusion for the benefit of certain parties — you should not be surprised when the party does not prosper, and you are completely incapable of recruiting people from my generation or younger en masse.

    You can all play games if you want … but any reasonable and well-learned person knows where that ends.

    TK is closer to the truth than the people defending Emily in this matter.

  13. Brian Holtz

    TK@13: The Wagner group is, at the moment, the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon

    That statement is much more accurate than

    TK@8: There is no legitimate controversy over which organization is the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon.

  14. Brian Holtz

    People who know they are the Good Guys™ are allowed to be rude to known Bad Guys.

    This principle is the very foundation of a civil society.

    And if the LP isn’t recruiting as many libertarians as we’d hope, it’s because we’re not being rude enough to known Bad Guys who claim to be libertarian.

  15. Kevin Knedler

    #@ # 14
    6th paragraph of yours and last sentence
    I am amused.
    Ohio LP is up in finances, up in candidates, up in volunteers, all moving ahead. Oh yes, we have a lot of new members, especially generation Y coming into the party. They are being put into leadership roles now.
    Not all states are a mess.

  16. Robert Capozzi

    14 ww: These are very necessary skills if you want to win a political battle against the Ds and the Rs.

    me: I see that even Romney is starting to “get” that civility is sound strategy. He’s acknowledging that BHO is a “nice guy,” but has been a poor prez.

    Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are also known advocates for the non-personal-attack, civil approach.

    This is not to say that hysterical, vicious, personal attacks are never used, or never work. Sometimes, they do facilitate desired outcomes.

    Desperate people who resort to them lose at a deeper level when they “violate” the Golden Rule.
    Every time.

  17. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    She exhibits something that Mr. Wagner does not– in Ohio and the Midwest we would call it “class”.

    Imagine the State confiscated your car, or house, or liberty, tossing you in jail for a few days.

    Imagine that a Judge ruled that the State was in violation of its own Law. And the Judge ordered that you be set free.

    Imagine that a State Official contacted you — politely! — and suggested that you two get together to “resolve the controversy” as to whether you should be set free or not.

    Would you admire that State Official for being so polite in being willing to “work out” whether she should obey the Judge’s ruling or not?

    There is no controversy. The Credentialing Committee is vile to even suggest as much. (But no more vile than are so many LNC actions.)

  18. wes wagner

    KK @ 17

    I think you are proving my point. It is my understanding that instead of playing backbiting political games in Ohio you have been running and supporting candidates who try to raise a high profile for the party.

  19. George Phillies

    @10 The case was I gather dismissed because all of the people who should have been plaintiffs were not yet attached, the attorney was being allowed to fix this, may or may not at this point have done so, and the new suit will renew. ‘Dismiss without trial’ is a standard motion made by attorneys, and frequently fails, though in this case I gather that is not what happened, so perhaps the suit will now advance to discoveries and depositions. In some year now, a trial date may be set.

    The complication that the LNC allowed the Burke faction attorney used material developed while paid for the LNC — as seen in the recent minutes — may lead to some additional outcomes.

  20. George Phillies

    I urge everyone to read chapter 17 of my book Funding Liberty to see how Arizona turned out.

    It would not have hurt of the credentials committee, having delayed until recently inviting the parties to speak, would have asked when they were arriving.

    Incidentally, what appear to be LNC minutes appear to say that the Credentials Committee Chair elected by the LNC is Jeff Dimit of South Carolina.

    I expect that this time the outcome will be different.

  21. JT

    Wagner: “As far as the general “being rude” to Emily — no matter how polite someone acts to others does not excuse their conduct.”

    What was her conduct in particular that deserved that response? Maybe she did deserve that response depending on what she has done personally. All I have to go on here is what she wrote, which was a polite, accommodating e-mail requesting a telephone conversation.

  22. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@15,

    Both statements are equally accurate.

    There may be a legitimate controversy over which organization SHOULD BE the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon, but there is no legitimate controversy over which organization IS the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon.

    It is not the credentials committee’s prerogative to decide which organization SHOULD BE the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon.

    It is the credentials committee’s duty to seat the delegates of the organization which IS the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon.

  23. JT

    I second Holtz at post 16 based on this correspondence.

    I’d like to know what Salvette in particular did to warrant what appears to me right now to be a disgusting response to another Libertarian’s request.

  24. Brian Holtz

    Wagner complains that Reeves has allegedly refused to talk to him about the Oregon situation. Those who don’t understand how Reeve’s refusal to talk to Wagner is completely different than Wagner’s refusal to talk to Salvette should read the court’s opinion in the landmark case of Good Guys™ v. Bad Guys.

  25. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    JT: I’d like to know what Salvette in particular did to warrant what appears to me right now to be a disgusting response to another Libertarian’s request.

    Wagner’s response was not “disgusting” for reasons I explained @ 19.

  26. JT

    RTAA: “Wagner’s response was not “disgusting” for reasons I explained @ 19.”

    Your post 19 was ridiculous.

    Sorry, but I don’t think a request for a phone call deserves that kind of rudeness. Now, she may have deserved a curt response & end of conversation depending on what she said during that call. But if I had a problem with the LNC and a Libertarian on a committee respectfully said she wanted to contact me about it, I’d say okay even if I were skeptical going into the discussion. Then I’d react based on the nature of that communication. Not before it.

  27. Brian Holtz

    Root’s Teeth, your analogy needs to start like this:

    Imagine you say on tape that you’ll never be able to get 2/3 approval at a convention for your bylaws rewrite, so you invoke alleged authority from the omnipotent State to impose novel bylaws novel that a) dissolve the Judicial Committee, b) summarily expel a category of members that includes some of your political enemies, and c) dilute the voting rights of the remaining ~150 members by adding about 13,000 new members, almost none of whom had ever paid dues or subscribed to the party’s Statement of Principles. Then you appoint yourself Chair and deny that the government’s courts can review these actions that you just said the government has empowered you to take.

  28. JT

    Wagner: “Consider reading Franz Kafka’s “The Trial.”

    I don’t really like Kafka’s work. Thanks for the recommendation though.

  29. wes wagner

    JT

    I don’t particularly love hm as an author either, but the particular story is about a man who is polite and cordial for the most part throughout a highly bureaucratic process.

  30. Brian Holtz

    TK@24 Right, because disagreeing with the decisions — nay, the pending-review inertial non-decisions — of the Omnipotent State is not what the Libertarian Party is all about.

  31. JT

    But Holtz, we’re talking about a state committee here, not the national one. LNC members are the ones who should be attacked if they do such things (and you bet your ass they would be by some commenters here). But if those things are done on the state level? LNC stooges should stop picking on them.

  32. JT

    Wagner: “I don’t particularly love hm as an author either, but the particular story is about a man who is polite and cordial for the most part throughout a highly bureaucratic process.”

    Is there a scene with a man who responds rudely to a simple request for a phone call by a volunteer committee member?

  33. Rebecca Sink-Burris

    Mean while at the grown-up table, where no one is yelling or insulting anyone, people of good faith are trying to sort the facts and figure out the future implications of any action or inaction.

    Brian Holtz brings up the issue of allowing the State of Oregon to determine our affiliates rather than using our own rules. As a Libertarian since the 70’s, I agree with Brian that we need to be able to determine this for ourselves and not bring the state into this. BTW the Oregon Secretary of State, to her credit agreed that we should make this determination and did not want to be involved when the issue was raised.

    But now the issue is in the Oregon court system and any action that the Credentials Committee could be used by either party to substantiate their claim. At this point, I am not sure that either faction should be credentialed until after the legal suit has been settled.

    What I am sure of is that the children’s table deserves a time-out until they can behave in an adult fashion, No more flaming fingers please.

  34. Bill Hall

    As Mr. Phillies points out at #22, Emily Salvette is not the Chair of the Credentials Committee. Jeff Dimit is. Emily Salvette has volunteered much of her spare time over the past couple of months doing the clerical work to get as many delegates registered as possible. That is why anyone trying to register delegates (including Mr. Wagner) is probably dealing with her or volunteers she has recruited, rather than someone else. She is only one member of the Credentials Committee and cannot make decisions for the balance of the Committee. The title of this thread should be corrected, as it is seriously misleading.

  35. Nicholas Sarwark

    @37: The LNC (and its subcommittees like Credentials) should act in accordance with the ruling of its internal Judicial Committee as to which group is presently the affiliate in Oregon. Unless and until the Oregon courts rule differently or the LNC musters the votes to disaffiliate, that’s the Wagner group.

    While all actions taken in relation to this controversy (including warring press releases as we’ve seen over the past month or so) can potentially be used by one or both sides in their ongoing litigation, I don’t see how that fact can be used as a reason for the Credentials Committee not to seat a delegation from an affiliate.

    What am I missing?

  36. paulie

    we need to be able to determine this for ourselves and not bring the state into this.

    We have, in so far as the JudCom has issued a ruling and the LNC accepted it under protest and listed Wagner et al as the LNC affiliate. It seems to me that the Credential Committee should also be bound by that ruling, even if you believe the case was decided incorrectly. Whatever Wagner et al have done wrong is a separate issue. So is any ongoing court case. For the purpose of CredCom determining which group is seated as the delegation from Oregon, the only relevant fact should be that JudCom issued a ruling which is binding on the LNC and its standing subcommittees (or whatever the terms is), including CredCom.

    Again, here is what this is NOT about:

    *Which faction in fact should be the LNC affiliate in Oregon
    *Which way JudCom should have ruled and why
    *Ongoing litigation in Oregon state courts

    CredCom should have no independent input on any of that. It should defer to the decision which the JudCom did in fact make, even if that decision was wrong.

    Furthermore – although this should also be irrelevant – the practical impact of not seating Wagner et al is likely to be an expensive ballot access drive which could conceivably fail and/or cause drives in other states to fail.

    All that being said, I would still advise Mr. Wagner to treat Ms. Salvette politely, and to take her up on her offer to talk to him. It would make him look better to anyone who has not been following all along and/or remains to any degree on the fence. I realize he has been in the thick of battle for a long time, has a battlefield perspective on the situation, and is thus unlikely to take my advice, but that is my advice nevertheless.

  37. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Paulie, I just went in to correct the title, and I see you already have. I don’t mind that you corrected it, and I apologize for the error.

  38. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@33,

    Strawman much?

    I’ve never claimed that the Omnipotent State of Oregon is the arbiter of which organization is the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon.

    The LNC, including its Judicial Committee on appeal, is the arbiter of that question.

    And the LNC, through its Judicial Committee on appeal, has settled that question.

    The question might be raised again — for example, if the LNC chooses to raise it again by following the bylaws and disaffiliating its affiliate in Oregon then recognizing a new one — but until and unless it does, the credentials committee isn’t empowered to do so. The LNC’s recognition of a group as its affiliate constitutes the credentials committee’s marching orders with respect to which group’s delegation to seat. It’s not optional.

  39. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I also just went in to change the first sentence, and I see you’ve (appropriately) done that as well, Paulie.

    Frankly, the fact that she isn’t chair does make me think Mr. Wagner was excessively harsh. My point of posting the correspondence as an article is to a. keep people watching the Oregon situation up to date, and b. prepare/alert the other attendees of the convention that there might be an issue re: Oregon delegates that first day. I can absolutely understand Mr. Wagner’s frustration and, frankly, IMHO, I believe his delegates should be seated without questions at this point. However, as I tell my employees, there are a hundred ways to tell someone that it’s raining outside. Some of the ways will make the listener very concerned and upset at the outside storm, and other ways of imparting the information will make the listener delighted at the possibility of an impending rainbow at the end.

    Okay, maybe the analogy isn’t exactly the same, but I hope the readers here get my point.

  40. George Phillies

    One might also emphatically note that Emily is personally a very nice person who is stuck being the face on her committee, even if she is not chair, and who has two litigants — assuming the list of plaintiffs was changed — as alternates on her committee.

    Inquiring minds may continue to wonder, however, why our Oregon affiliate, Wes Wagner chair, was initially not told to file its delegation list via the usual process followed for all other states.

    Having been here before, I anticipate that the outcome may not necessarily be positive, except that if our Oregon Party is not seated I would anticipate the result will be a bit more dramatic than the 1999-2000 or 2002-2004 outcomes.

  41. Oregon Libertarian

    So the credentials committee is violating the bylaws and the will of the LNC,
    Wagner is a bit gruff in his reply to the volunteer,

    AND you guys debate if the State runs the Party or if Libertarians run the Party.

    Did I miss anything?

  42. JT

    Paulie: “CredCom should have no independent input on any of that. It should defer to the decision which the JudCom did in fact make, even if that decision was wrong.”

    Is the job of the Credentials Committee just a record-keeping one? By this, I mean to make sure there’s an accurate list of the delegates from every state and the proper credentials are ready when those delegates arrive?

    If so, then I agree with your comment, Paulie, despite what I consider odious behavior by Wagner & company (just as it would be for LNC members). And there’s no problem with Wagner (in a non-belligerent way) telling Salvette that on the phone and hearing what she says in response, as you suggest as well. If she becomes contentious or it’s clear that nothing productive is happening, he can just say that there’s no point in talking more if the Credentials Committee is unwilling to seat his delegation in advance of the convention. That wouldn’t take much time or energy.

  43. paulie

    Is the job of the Credentials Committee just a record-keeping one? By this, I mean to make sure there’s an accurate list of the delegates from every state and the proper credentials are ready when those delegates arrive?

    That’s the way I understand it.

  44. Brian Holtz

    Nick@39: one thing you (and Paulie @40) may be missing is that the Credentials Committee is a convention committee, not a subcommittee or agent of the LNC. The only authority of LNC over CredCom is to appoint/replace 50% of its members. LNC has no authority to dictate or change the decisions of CredCom, which in any event cannot take formal action until it meets in person, which will be in Vegas.

    Tom @43, note that the Judicial Committee is not a committee of the LNC, it’s a committee of the LPUS.

    JudCom ruled that, short of disaffiliating, the LNC cannot act contrary to JudCom’s dictum that “the Libertarian Party of a particular state is the entity recognized by the secretary of state” of the state. The OR SoS has said that such recognition can only come from 1) request of the outgoing Chair or 2) court order. So it seems somewhat relevant that there is a pending court case on the matter.

    Whatever the Credentials Committee recommends in its report, it will be subject to debate and amendment by the convention delegates before being adopted. There’s no possible universe in which the delegates won’t be voting on CredCom report amendments about the Oregon delegation. Robert’s says that any contested delegates seated by CredCom cannot vote on amendments about whether they should be seated, so in principle it won’t matter which delegates (if any) CredCom recognizes from Oregon. In practice, a lot of less-than-fully-informed delegates will be inclined to accept CredCom’s recommendation. The floor debate over the matter will be crucial.

  45. Nicholas Sarwark

    @51: The Credentials Committee may not be an LNC subcommittee, but seating any delegates from any Oregon group other than the Wagner group is completely ultra vires, since there is no other affiliate in Oregon according to the LNC.

  46. LISTEN anytime 24/7 to the T-Rex of Talk Radio

    paulie @ 40 -“Furthermore – although this should also be irrelevant – the practical impact of not seating Wagner et al is likely to be an expensive ballot access drive which could conceivably fail and/or cause drives in other states to fail”

    I submit this is very relevant and everyone (other than the Root lackeys) needs to keep this fact foremost in their minds when considering this matter.

    Delegates need to clean the LNC of Root and all his LACKEYS ! They have shown no great progress in building the LP, but in fact only gutting an active NV LP putting future NV ballot access in danger. Time for new blood on the LNC and LNCC!

    This is a serious matter but I assert no more serious than George Phillies recent statement that he gave Lee Wrights $2400 for his campaign in 2011. FEC rules are clear that ALL donations combined from an individual totalling over $200 must be reported to the FEC. There is no record of Lee Wrights having reported the Phillies’ donation. Bringing into question is Lee Wrights keeping accurate official legal records of his campaign donations?! No Third Party needs an embarassing investigation into their POTUS nominee during a general election. The LP must look into this matter now before May 5 to ensure this matter is clear before it can be tied directly to the LP.

    “Vote Libertarian, It Only Feels Kinky the First Time!” – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=446

  47. Wes Wagner

    @53
    and
    GP

    This perked my ears up … when was the donation given, what was the cutoff for the reporting period and what are the rules?

    Can we hash that out ASAP?

  48. LISTEN anytime 24/7 to the T-Rex of Talk Radio

    Mr.Wagner, George Phillies said he gave it sometime in 2011. He will have to give a date. The FEC rules are clear about the over $200 contributers being reported. I and others have not seen in the official Wrights FEC filings the Phillies donation listed anywhere! It raises questions that need to be answered before the LP POTUS nom vote takes place on May 5 (or 6th ?). The LP has an uphill battle as is, they don’t need a major problem harming fundraising in a negative way!!!

    “Sure, you can trust the government.” – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=288

    Libertarian License Plate & License Plate Frames – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewCat&catId=120

  49. Ken Moellman

    It is of no wonder that the people I knew who were involved in the LP Oregon, in its previous, effective iteration, are off doing other things outside of the LP Oregon now. Knowing Emily personally, I know her intention is to create and promote a vibrant, effective Libertarian Party.

    Meanwhile, intentionally involving the FEC in any matter for the purposes of creating trouble — which IMO is all that can ever be — is just wrong, no matter who’s doing it.

  50. LISTEN anytime 24/7 to the T-Rex of Talk Radio

    @56 We don’t want the FEC involved. The LP needs to sort that matter out before Lee Wrights is perhaps nominated and then runs into serious trouble with the FEC. Perhaps causing the LP trouble in fundraising this year.

    Bob LIBERTARIAN Burns as a LP POTUS candidate does not accept donations totalling over $200 or $5000 total as that kicks in FEC oversight. Burns has served time in Federal Prison on Tax matters. He wants no part of FEC trouble. The LP doesn’t either I am sure. That’s why they need to get on the ball and get to the bottom of this George Phillies statement about the Lee Wrights campaign now instead of later.

    “Bad Criminals Go To Jail. The Best Go To Washington.” – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=682

    I have this crazy idea the Constitution actually means something. – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=343

    “Remember When Our Rights Mattered?” – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=445

  51. wes wagner

    LG and BH at 58 and 26 respectively

    Emily and I had emails about this in March. She let the issue go past the point of no return, procedurally speaking. After letting the issue sit almost a month in bureaucratic limbo only to be obtuse about it … that dog does not hunt.

    On the other hand, Mr Reeves has never had a single conversation with me in his life that I can recall.

  52. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Bill Wood @ 60: LOL. Aside from WAR’s radio show from two weeks ago, we actually don’t talk about him that much any more on IPR. I’m not sure why, but even if there’s an article about him, it doesn’t tend to go that long. I guess everyone knows him by now, and made up their mind as whether they love him or hate him. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of middle ground.

  53. Brian Holtz

    Yes, we should not let bureaucratic limbo/inertia decide important party business.

    Like, say, the OR SoS’s inertia about not updating its web site until outgoing officers agree they’re no longer in office.

  54. paulie

    On second thought, 2006-2008, eventuating in the formation of the Boston Tea Party.

    BTP was formed in 2006 – however I don’t see how that is analogous. It is not disputing for control of any LP affiliates, delegations or ballot lines, and never has to my knowledge. What’s the relevance of the BTP here?

  55. paulie

    Nick@39: one thing you (and Paulie @40) may be missing is that the Credentials Committee is a convention committee, not a subcommittee or agent of the LNC

    I think Knapp or someone was claiming differently in IPR comments recently. I’ll see if I can track that down later. So does CredCom have the authority to substitute delegations in other states, and what would or should happen if they did?

    JudCom ruled that, short of disaffiliating, the LNC cannot act contrary to JudCom’s dictum that “the Libertarian Party of a particular state is the entity recognized by the secretary of state” of the state. The OR SoS has said that such recognition can only come from 1) request of the outgoing Chair or 2) court order. So it seems somewhat relevant that there is a pending court case on the matter.

    There’s been no such court order, nor is there likely to be one before the LP convention, so for the time being the OR SOS, LP national JC and thus LNC all recognize Wagner et al as the legitimate Oregon LP, pending court case notwithstanding. In other words it’s court orders, not court cases, that have bearing. Otherwise, someone could sue and claim that any state LP they don’t like is not the legitimate LP in that state, and if there is no time to resolve that through the courts before the convention and if they have friends on CredCom would that mean CredCom could unseat any of those sued delegations at will?

  56. George Phillies

    @63 BTP became a full national party. I am reasonably sure that it would have welcomed state L parties that chose to re-affiliate. If they had succeeded they would gradually have replaced the LP.

    Arizona made no effort to mobilize supporters in other states as a separate party; they wanted to be left alone.

    I will not be surprised if the LPO delegation is not seated, LPO treats this correctly as a disaffiliation, and LPO makes a vigorous effort to respond to the issue on a national scale.

  57. George Phillies

    The Credentials committee is created by the LP Bylaws and is a creature of the National Party, which has a national committee and a Judicial Committee.

  58. paulie

    ”Furthermore – although this should also be irrelevant – the practical impact of not seating Wagner et al is likely to be an expensive ballot access drive which could conceivably fail and/or cause drives in other states to fail”

    I submit this is very relevant

    I highlighted the word should the second time.

    The reason that it should be irrelevant is because the JC’s ruling should be applicable here regardless of any other facts.

    That’s not to say that it will actually be irrelevant in the real world mess that has been made of this.

  59. paulie

    George Phillies said he gave it sometime in 2011. He will have to give a date. The FEC rules are clear about the over $200 contributers being reported. I and others have not seen in the official Wrights FEC filings the Phillies donation listed anywhere! It raises questions that need to be answered before the LP POTUS nom vote takes place

    As I understand it Dr. Phillies said he gave the money before the campaign hit the 5k total that triggered mandatory reporting to the FEC.

  60. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH,

    “Tom @43, note that the Judicial Committee is not a committee of the LNC, it’s a committee of the LPUS.”

    Why would an entity that doesn’t exist as an organization (“LPUS”) need, or have, a Judicial Committee?

    And why would the rules governing that committee be codified in the bylaws of a different, actual organization (LNC)?

  61. Ken Moellman

    @57, Based on my understanding of campaign finance laws, I don’t think the LP would have a problem even if the FEC were brought in. As long as the party had no part in giving the money to a candidate, the party has no place at the table in the matter. Only if the LP butts-in will they cause themselves a potential problem. Every “legitimate” campaign seems to bump heads with the FEC in some way. I’ve been told some politicians consider it an “effectiveness” tax.

  62. Brian Holtz

    @71 Read the Bylaws.

    @65 Non sequitur.

    @66 (It’s LPOR, not LPO.) Re-read the last paragraph of @51. Whatever LPOR delegation ends up seated will be determined by a vote of the convention delegates. If the convention delegates effectively declare the Wagner regime to be illegitimate, then how do you think they might “make a vigorous effort to respond to the issue on a national scale”? Should I alert the LPCA county affiliates that border Oregon?

  63. Pingback: Correspondence Between Member of Credentialing Committee for Libertarian National Convention and Chair of One of the Oregon Groups | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

  64. George Phillies

    The $2400 is quite visibly in the campaign filings as a dollar amount. I had no trouble finding it. The treasurer reminds me that I gave to Wrights on a somewhat earlier date than I remembered, while Lee was still testing the waters. The campaign may or may not need to do an amended filing, based on some abstruse aspects of the testing the waters filings.

    However, you should remember that even a marginally competent campaign treasurer always checks the Filing against the bank statement for the end of the month, and those two should agree to the penny. Therefore, the money is visible, and I had no trouble finding it in Lee’s reports.

    Things can go wrong with FEC filings. There was the time I did the next month’s filings for my state committee, got a series of bizarre outcomes, and eventually discovered that the prior month’s upload of the report to the FEC had mysteriously failed to upload part of the file, so things were correct on my FEC-FILE files, and the files at the FEC did not agree with what was on my computer.

  65. George Phillies

    A more extended version of the original messages between Wagner and Salvette — two messages prior to the above, which make matters look rather differently — appear on the LP Radicals facebook group.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *